Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Two Spanish Pilgrims
Last Thursday TRH Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia of the Asturias participated in a time-honored Spanish tradition; walking the Camino de Santiago in Galicia to the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. This was once one of the most famous places of pilgrimage in the world, and still is for Roman Catholics though of course it is not like it was in the era of the height of Christendom. Of course with these two pilgrims the media followed them every step of the way. Upon arriving at the cathedral they met people in the crowd before going inside to embrace the statue of St James, took some time to reflect before his relics and then heard mass.This is the sort of thing that I love to see, especially in this day and age when secularism is so rampant. Royal-religious occasions do remain; I think of Queen Elizabeth II on Maundy Thursday, the Prince of Monaco on St Devote day and the like but it seems that such events are few and far between these days, especially in the Christian -or formerly Christian- world. The Emperor of Japan still participates in certain Shinto rites and the Kings of Thailand and Cambodia preside at important Buddhist ceremonies but even in that part of the world, with the fall of monarchies, many of these religious customs have gone extinct. The communist rulers of China and Vietnam may now go through the steps of copying what the emperors once did, going to the Altar of Heaven to make offerings on behalf of the nation -but it is nothing more than play-acting and everyone sees it as such.
If anyone would like to leave a comment on some important religious occasion which modern day royals participate in, whether reigning or non-reigning royals, I (and I'm sure all readers) would be glad to hear about them.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Violence Rises in Bangkok
The liberal media outlet (PM)MSNBC reports on the recent upsurge of violence in Bangkok. Readers will note that the red-shirts are cast in the light of heroic victims, the champions of the poor, rising up against the "royalist elite" who dominate the current government.
Monarchy and Native Americans
There is a long and varied history shared by the kingdoms of Europe and the American Indians. Any time a more advanced civilization comes in contact with a more primitive one there are bound to be problems, intentional or accidental. All too often Europeans tended to exaggerate the lack of knowledge of the Indians, generalizing them in some cases as savage beyond saving while others, even those taking a more benevolent if condescending attitude confused a lack of knowledge of things Europeans considered invaluable to a lack of knowing what was best for themselves. In reality, American Indians learned quickly how things worked with the European powers and acted in what was their own obvious self-interest in deciding when to negotiate, when to fight, who to ally with and who to oppose.
When Christopher Columbus was first sent across the Atlantic Queen Isabella was clear that the natives he encountered were, “to be treated as free men, for such they are”. The Spanish certainly did not always treat the Indians well but it is often forgotten how many became advocates for the Indians, particularly the missionaries who obviously were going to have a harder time converting the Indians to Christianity when they were being brutalized by other people claiming to be Christians. It is also noteworthy that when monarchy returned to Mexico in the person of Emperor Maximilian it was the Indian population that was often the most welcoming and it was an Indian who was regarded as his most loyal and upright general. Keep in mind that during this period the president who was opposing Maximilian was himself a full-blooded Zapotec Indian.
In the north of America there were numerous conflicts between the Indians and Europeans but a crucial conflict was the French and Indian War -the name the British colonists gave to the conflict because of the makeup of their enemies. In the end the British were successful and those Indians that sided with the French were generally vilified. However, the fact that most Indians sided with the French was a logical ‘foreign policy’ decision to make. One reason the French faced such long odds in that was is because they had such a smaller population than the British. While the British sent over settlers, establishing colonies, growing and expanding, the French sent mostly trappers, traders and Jesuits. It was natural common sense for most of the Indians to side with the French, who mostly preached to them and traded with them, in opposition to the British whose colonists were expanding, pushing them out and claiming more and more of their land.
In the same way, not many years later, most of the Indians sided with the British Crown against the rebel colonists of the soon-to-be United States. Again, this was a very rational thing for the Indians to do as King George III of Great Britain had already recognized the rights of ownership the Indians had to the lands they occupied while the colonies had already claimed the same land for themselves extending all the way to the Louisiana Territory. It was also during the American War for Independence that the U.S. forces gained their first unsavory reputation for destroying Indian settlements. This left such an impression that the first name the Indians gave to the President of the United States translated to “the burner of villages”. Also in the War of 1812 the Indians supported the British against the U.S. and in fact were instrumental in preventing the American conquest of Canada.
For many, many years later, when the United States was engaged in the conflicts known under the blanket term of the “Indian Wars” after 1865 it was still the monarchy of Canada that was seen as the preferred safe haven for those Indians under attack by the US. Some did flee to Mexico, but the (republican) government there was often as bad or worse to deal with than the US and so you would see huge numbers of refugee Indians enduring immense hardship to escape north to the relative safety and security of the Dominion of Canada. For anyone interested in reading more about this subject you can review past profiles of Tomas Mejia, Chief Joseph Brant and Simon Girty. More examples will be looked at in future posts.
When Christopher Columbus was first sent across the Atlantic Queen Isabella was clear that the natives he encountered were, “to be treated as free men, for such they are”. The Spanish certainly did not always treat the Indians well but it is often forgotten how many became advocates for the Indians, particularly the missionaries who obviously were going to have a harder time converting the Indians to Christianity when they were being brutalized by other people claiming to be Christians. It is also noteworthy that when monarchy returned to Mexico in the person of Emperor Maximilian it was the Indian population that was often the most welcoming and it was an Indian who was regarded as his most loyal and upright general. Keep in mind that during this period the president who was opposing Maximilian was himself a full-blooded Zapotec Indian.
In the north of America there were numerous conflicts between the Indians and Europeans but a crucial conflict was the French and Indian War -the name the British colonists gave to the conflict because of the makeup of their enemies. In the end the British were successful and those Indians that sided with the French were generally vilified. However, the fact that most Indians sided with the French was a logical ‘foreign policy’ decision to make. One reason the French faced such long odds in that was is because they had such a smaller population than the British. While the British sent over settlers, establishing colonies, growing and expanding, the French sent mostly trappers, traders and Jesuits. It was natural common sense for most of the Indians to side with the French, who mostly preached to them and traded with them, in opposition to the British whose colonists were expanding, pushing them out and claiming more and more of their land.
In the same way, not many years later, most of the Indians sided with the British Crown against the rebel colonists of the soon-to-be United States. Again, this was a very rational thing for the Indians to do as King George III of Great Britain had already recognized the rights of ownership the Indians had to the lands they occupied while the colonies had already claimed the same land for themselves extending all the way to the Louisiana Territory. It was also during the American War for Independence that the U.S. forces gained their first unsavory reputation for destroying Indian settlements. This left such an impression that the first name the Indians gave to the President of the United States translated to “the burner of villages”. Also in the War of 1812 the Indians supported the British against the U.S. and in fact were instrumental in preventing the American conquest of Canada.
For many, many years later, when the United States was engaged in the conflicts known under the blanket term of the “Indian Wars” after 1865 it was still the monarchy of Canada that was seen as the preferred safe haven for those Indians under attack by the US. Some did flee to Mexico, but the (republican) government there was often as bad or worse to deal with than the US and so you would see huge numbers of refugee Indians enduring immense hardship to escape north to the relative safety and security of the Dominion of Canada. For anyone interested in reading more about this subject you can review past profiles of Tomas Mejia, Chief Joseph Brant and Simon Girty. More examples will be looked at in future posts.
Favorite Royal Images: Royals Going "Native"
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth meeting leaders of the Stoney Indian tribe who are displaying a portrait of Queen Victoria given to the tribe long ago.
HRH the Prince of Wales
Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, with the Chiefs of the Six Nations
Lord Tweedsmuir, Governor-General of Canada
HM King Edward VIII
HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco
Prince Albert and Princess Caroline of Monaco
HSH Princess Stephanie of MonacoSaturday, May 15, 2010
Happy Birthday Dom Duarte!
The Radical Royalist of Australia reports on the 65th birthday of the heir to the Portuguese throne Dom Duarte III, Duke of Braganza. The Mad Monarchist joins all loyal Portuguese and his supporters around the world in wishing His Highness a very happy birthday!
Royal News Roundup
Starting in the Far East, Her (Adorable) Imperial Highness Princess Aiko has had some more problems recently. Readers will remember some time back she was pulled out of school because of bullying problems, well, someone has done worse than that it seems. On Wednesday a 26-yr-old man was arrested for making an on-line threat against the Princess’ life. He reportedly threatened to ‘smash her head with a hammer’. I hope the guilty party will be punished to the full extent of the law. No doubt Japanese authorities are on even higher alert on this subject given the media frenzy over a number of horrific mass murders in schools in Communist China where killers have rampaged with hammers, knives and other such objects (no private gun ownership in China -doesn’t stop the killing people!) which I am sure was on the mind of everyone in Japan.
In Europe, HM King Juan Carlos of Spain was taken to hospital this week for surgery to remove a benign lesion on his lung. The King of Spain is 72 and was once known as a heavy smoker (loved them Cuban cigars) but has not been seen lighting up in recent years. The King was released on Tuesday, everything having gone fine and with nothing but compliments for the state health system. That same day the Sultan of Brunei brought his son Prince Abdul Mateen to the famous British military academy at Sandhurst for training. The prince is fifth in line to the throne of the absolute monarchy of Brunei and the Sultan himself once attended Sandhurst as have many other royals from many nations around the world. HH Pope Benedict XVI wrapped up a visit to Portugal, focused around the shrine at Fatima where three shepherd children saw a vision of the Virgin Mary during World War I. The Pope presented a Golden Rose to the shrine, spoke about the centrality of the Virgin, the importance of the Rosary and the need for a staunch defense of traditional family values. Record crowds attended the papal events. Also this week, as has been mentioned below, HM Queen Elizabeth II accepted the resignation of Gordon Brown and appointed Conservative Party leader David Cameron Prime Minister. It has been reported that Cameron is a natural descendant of King William IV.
In America HRH Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden was a big hit in Seattle, Washington for “Sweden Week” where she filled in for her sister Princess Madeleine. The Crown Princess was a big hit, impressing everyone with her intelligence, knowledge and good humor. Among other events she toured Swedish Medical Center’s cancer ward for children where staff members gave her a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “I Love Swedish Babies” -which is perfectly true the Princess told them. Later she also toured a Swedish School and attended the “Arctic Summer” fashion show at the Nordic Heritage Museum which featured clothing from designers across Scandinavia. In another interview the Crown Princess confessed that she and her husband-to-be are impatient to get married but also nervous about all that has to be done concerning the wedding. She said they are very anxious to tie the knot and start a family of her own and that she is totally committed to serving Sweden.
In Europe, HM King Juan Carlos of Spain was taken to hospital this week for surgery to remove a benign lesion on his lung. The King of Spain is 72 and was once known as a heavy smoker (loved them Cuban cigars) but has not been seen lighting up in recent years. The King was released on Tuesday, everything having gone fine and with nothing but compliments for the state health system. That same day the Sultan of Brunei brought his son Prince Abdul Mateen to the famous British military academy at Sandhurst for training. The prince is fifth in line to the throne of the absolute monarchy of Brunei and the Sultan himself once attended Sandhurst as have many other royals from many nations around the world. HH Pope Benedict XVI wrapped up a visit to Portugal, focused around the shrine at Fatima where three shepherd children saw a vision of the Virgin Mary during World War I. The Pope presented a Golden Rose to the shrine, spoke about the centrality of the Virgin, the importance of the Rosary and the need for a staunch defense of traditional family values. Record crowds attended the papal events. Also this week, as has been mentioned below, HM Queen Elizabeth II accepted the resignation of Gordon Brown and appointed Conservative Party leader David Cameron Prime Minister. It has been reported that Cameron is a natural descendant of King William IV.
In America HRH Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden was a big hit in Seattle, Washington for “Sweden Week” where she filled in for her sister Princess Madeleine. The Crown Princess was a big hit, impressing everyone with her intelligence, knowledge and good humor. Among other events she toured Swedish Medical Center’s cancer ward for children where staff members gave her a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “I Love Swedish Babies” -which is perfectly true the Princess told them. Later she also toured a Swedish School and attended the “Arctic Summer” fashion show at the Nordic Heritage Museum which featured clothing from designers across Scandinavia. In another interview the Crown Princess confessed that she and her husband-to-be are impatient to get married but also nervous about all that has to be done concerning the wedding. She said they are very anxious to tie the knot and start a family of her own and that she is totally committed to serving Sweden.
Happy St Dymphna Day
Today the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast of St Dymphna, patroness of those suffering from nervous and mental illnesses. She is also a member of the select club of "royal saints" being an Irish princess. She was martyred at Gheel, near Antwerp, Belgium.
Friday, May 14, 2010
British Political Machine Lumbers On
As most know I'm sure HM Queen Elizabeth II has appointed a new Prime Minister, David Cameron of the Conservative Party, who will rule through a coalition with the Liberal Democrats after the vaguely reptilian Gordon Brown failed to cobble together an agreement that would let him cling to power. My initial response was one of expectations fulfilled. Most expected the Conservatives to win, as I did, and given how liberal overall the electorate is I also did not expect a landslide majority. The fact that a coalition was worked out between the Tories and the LibDems, supposedly at opposite ends of the political spectrum, also reinforces my opinion that the few differences between the major parties in the UK are simply over the degree to which they wish to pursue the same policies. The fact is, if either the LibDems or the Tories had any real convictions about what they are supposed to stand for they would be completely unable to ever form a coalition government.So, no surprises there. I was a bit taken aback by the casual certainty given to the term length of this government. Did I miss something? Is it not the Queen who is supposed to say when governments come and go? I realize it is a purely ceremonial thing these days but still -that ceremony and symbolism is supposed to mean something -right? I will admit, British politics makes me more weary than it probably should since I grew up with such an outdated, idyllic image of Great Britain in my mind. But, regardless of that it does infuriate me that in one of the most powerful, successful and respected nations in world history there seems to be pitiful lack of true pride and patriotism. Of course, this does not include the readers of this blog as it is the serious monarchists who are the noble exception to this trend.
To quote one of my favorite British patriotic songs, "Red, white and blue; what does it mean to you?" Not what it used to for the majority or at the very least the ruling elite these days. Am I the only one who died a little inside when the competitors for the PM job (especially Nicky and Gordie) spoke about how Britain desperately needed the EU to survive? My God man! Bite your tongues! Is this the nation that conquered India? The nation that spanned Africa from the Cape to Cairo? The proud island that stood firm against the Nazi war machine and which ruled the seven seas for centuries on end? Let that proud, patriotic spirit soar again! It was never a bad or destructive thing. Certainly from time to time Britain was in the wrong, but it was in the right probably more often than not. I have often joked that these days the only ardent British patriots seem to be in Northern Ireland rather than Britain. I hope that is not the case, and I know there are diehards holding out in these troubled times but despite the joy I have at seeing Brown evicted from No.10 this was no great victory. It cannot be too soon that the whole crop of spineless, lefty, 'one Europe - one world' political slime are wiped out and the United Kingdom returned to the spirit, the faith and the true constitutional monarchy that made them the greatest maritime empire in history. God Save the Queen!
Monarchist Profile: Ba Cut
The man known as Ba Cut (because of a short third finger) was born Le Quang Vinh in 1923 in the far south of Vietnam, what was then the French colony of Cochinchina. An unlikely defender of monarchy, he was orphaned at an early age, was adopted by a peasant family and fostered a lifelong hatred of landowners when these people were evicted by the local landlord. Illiterate and uneducated as a youth, he displayed a short and fiery temper for which he was to be known throughout his life. In 1939 the religious leader and prophet Huynh Phu So founded the Hoa Hao Buddhist sect which soon attracted a large following in the far south of Vietnam. He accomplished this through his powers of healing and prophecy. It is noteworthy that Huynh Phu So also seemed to be a monarchist, predicting the outbreak of World War II and preaching that this would lead to the restoration of the “true king” which referred to Prince Cuong De, a descendent of the first Nguyen dynasty emperor who was living in exile in Japan for preaching opposition to the French.Around 1943 Ba Cut joined the private militia of the Hoa Hao, originally formed to combat the private army of another new religious sect; the Cao Dai (a sort of combination of all the major world religions mixed into one). Within a year Ba Cut was a commander and, according to his enemies at least, gained a reputation for ruthlessness and deranged behavior. In 1945 the Hoa Hao clashed with the communist-dominated Vietminh (which posed as a nationalist group at that stage) as most of the Hoa Hao were supportive or at least neutral toward the Japanese while the communists opposed them. However, after the end of World War II there was a recognition that things had changed and the two sides agreed to a cease-fire to concentrate on fighting the returning French.
However, when Ba Cut was defeated by a rival within the Hoa Hao the French offered him their support and he came on side. There was no true change of heart on his part though and the money and arms he received went to fighting the rival Cao Dai sect rather than the VietMinh communists. Nonetheless, the same alliance was made and broken a number of times. He finally turned irrevocably against the French, pulled his forces out of the area he was defending (with the VietMinh filling the vacuum) but there was little the French could do as they were soon defeated in the epic battle of Dien Bien Phu which broke the back of French resistance and spelled the end of French power in Indochina.
In the peace deal signed by the French at Geneva Vietnam was partitioned with the communists keeping the north and the south remaining under the control of the State of Vietnam, under the nominal rule of the former Emperor Bao Dai but effectively governed by his prime minister Ngo Dinh Diem. The Emperor had refused to accept the Geneva agreement but Ba Cut blamed Diem for the fact that it was done and he became an intractable foe of Ngo Dinh Diem. Also opposed to Diem (but loyal to the Emperor Bao Dai) was the commander of the National Army of Vietnam General Nguyen Van Hinh who plotted a coup against him. Diem got rid of Hinh by advising the Emperor to call him to France but before he left he made Ba Cut a colonel in the regular army, knowing him to be an enemy of Diem.
As Diem tried to get rid of the private armies in South Vietnam Ba Cut openly fought the government troops loyal to him and at time his own Hoa Hao brethren who had been ‘bought’ by the prime minister. In 1955 his life was even saved by the French after he was severely wounded in a battle with the Cao Dai forces of General Trinh Minh The. This was because, in early 1955, it was clear to everyone that Diem was the favored leader by the United States (France had supported the former Emperor Bao Dai) and the French were not thrilled with being supplanted by the Americans in Indochina. It was even claimed later that retreating French forces had given top of the line weapons and war materials to the army of Ba Cut.
In the spring of 1955 the factions of the Hoa Hao, Cao Dai and the Binh Xuyen syndicate opposed to Diem joined forces in an effort to remove him from power and Ba Cut was named military commander of the coalition. Foreign advisors urged Diem to negotiate but he was an old-style man and was determined to crush all opposition. The Binh Xuyen fell first and then he moved against Ba Cut and the Hoa Hao. His forces were defeated and he fled to Cambodia, finally becoming the only hold-out. Ba Cut announced that while he opposed Diem he was loyal to the Emperor Bao Dai (hence his profile here) and Diem (who would soon depose the Emperor and become the first President of South Vietnam with US assistance) responded by getting rid of all the commanders of the regiments loyal to the Emperor and replacing them with his own hand-picked lieutenants.
With only 3,000 men still with him Ba Cut evaded and harassed 20,000 government troops sent to deal with him. A bounty of 1 million piasters was even put on his head. When Diem held a referendum (staged by his OSS advisor) to provide a legal basis for deposing Bao Dai and becoming president Ba Cut denounced him as an American lackey and prevented anyone from voting in the areas under his control. Nonetheless, the actual votes did not matter and Diem still claimed to have won 90% of the electorate (with even his American advisors warning him that he should have set the number lower to be more believable). The end finally came on April 13, 1956 when Ba Cut was captured by a government army patrol. After a short but dramatic show-trial he was sent to the guillotine on July 13 in Can Tho. In yet another change of loyalties typical of the time those diehard loyalists of Ba Cut who did not go along with the Diem regime ended up opposing the new government by joining the Viet Cong.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Mexico, Illegal Immigration and Monarchy
Considering where I live a lot of people have asked my opinion on the recent Arizona illegal immigration controversy. First of all, I love Mexico and have visited the country many times. My most recent visit was last year to attend a bull fight (my usual reason) but I have not been back this year, both for personal reasons and because of the increased violence on the border. I have had to deal with illegal immigrants all my life, and though I’ve had some hair-raising experiences I have never had a problem with them. All that come to my door for help I give food, water, sometimes new shoes to but I don’t let them use the phone or give them a ride anywhere (which would be illegal). Generally I only report those that seem suspicious.
However, the problems associated with illegal immigration and smuggling (human and narcotic) are a plague. Numerous friends, relatives and neighbors have had their homes broken into and robbed, including my grandparents, my sister and even my Dad’s foreman had both homes he stays in during the week broken into and robbed and he is from Mexico -which does not make him anymore tolerant of having things he worked hard for taken from him. Huge brush fires that destroyed hundreds of acres of property have been started because of illegal aliens building fires in the brush, a great deal of money is lost rebuilding fences when smugglers run through them trying to evade the authorities, they leave gates open letting cattle wander out causing accidents on the road and considerable loss in time and money spent rounding them up again. Although thankfully not very common there have also been assaults, rapes and murders, mostly at isolated homes by illegal aliens. Hospitals are in debt along the border for treating aliens who have been snake bit, hit by cars, run over by trains and so on.
Given all of that, and the number of Mexicans who die of the heat, dehydration and starvation trying to cross the border I can certainly understand the frustration of people in Arizona. I do not understand the outrage over increased efforts to enforce laws already on the books nor do I understand the claims of racism. I’m as white as a sheet and every time I come back from the border I have to go through a checkpoint like everyone else and am questioned about my citizenship. I’ve been stopped on the highway numerous times because (I was told) my vehicle matched the description of a vehicle reported to be carrying drugs or illegal aliens or to have been stolen or such thing. If illegal aliens from Mexico are a problem I fail to see anything evil with looking for Mexicans. Any time any crime is committed the first thing the authorities do is put out a description of the suspect; their race, their hair color, what clothes they are wearing and so on.
However, it is also true that nothing short of the most draconian measures possible are going to solve this problem on the part of the United States. The only place this problem can be truly solved is in Mexico and by allowing illegal immigration to continue unchecked the US is only enabling the problem. The primary underlying reason for illegal immigration is that Mexico is a failed state -which is not a racist statement but a simple fact. These border enforcement measures are often called racist because the same measures are not employed along the Canadian border. Well, the important difference is that Canada is not a failed state, Canadians are not flooding across the US border by the millions, drug wars are not being waged in Manitoba or Ontario and whole provinces in Canada are not under the control of criminal cartels.
The monarchy may not play a significant role in Canadian society and government today but the fact that Canada has always been a constitutional monarchy has meant that Canada has had a stable government where law and order and shared loyalty to the Crown allowed a stable and prosperous country to be built up. Mexico, on the other hand, has only ever had two monarchs and they shot both of them. The country throughout most of its history has been ruled by warlords and dictators, most coming to power via a coup rather than the democratic process they claim to champion. The history of Mexico has been one of almost continuous civil wars and revolutions. From 1924 to 2000 Mexico was essentially a one party socialist dictatorship under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) founded by a violently anti-clerical Marxist. Had either of the Mexican empires been maintained things would certainly be very different in Mexico today and given the state of the country as it is that difference would almost have to be for the better.
It could be argued, I suppose, that the United States should be held to blame for the problems of Mexico and somehow obliged to take in all Mexicans who wish to flee their country because of American support for the downfall of the two empires. However, statistics show that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants vote for the most leftist candidates after coming to the US (which is of course why the Democrats are the most opposed to border security) and support essentially the same policies in the US that made the country they left the failure that it is. This has also caused me to scratch my head in wonder at the Catholic leadership in America championing the cause of the illegal immigrants considering that (although nominally predominately Catholic) these people are coming from what was, until very recently, one of the most stridently anti-clerical regimes in the world and once here support overwhelmingly the political party that is most opposed to core Catholic values.
The situation is complicated, it is frustrating on a number of levels and I have nothing but sympathy for the decent Mexican people who are trying to make the best of their situation. I have zero sympathy for those who come to the USA illegally and then demand the same benefits and treatment of those who came the proper and legal way or who criticize and condemn America while enjoying the safety and prosperity that country provides them. I can only shake my head at those who wave Mexican flags in the US and shout about their Mexican “pride”. Real pride and patriotism would be staying in Mexico and working to make it a better country rather than abandoning it en masse. The best thing the US could do is stop illegal immigration as much as possible and let Mexico go its own way until the people finally get the message that the socialist-revolutionary model is a failure and try something different. I would suggest going in the exact opposite direction and looking to the example of their Emperors, possibly the only selfless leaders Mexico has ever had.
However, the problems associated with illegal immigration and smuggling (human and narcotic) are a plague. Numerous friends, relatives and neighbors have had their homes broken into and robbed, including my grandparents, my sister and even my Dad’s foreman had both homes he stays in during the week broken into and robbed and he is from Mexico -which does not make him anymore tolerant of having things he worked hard for taken from him. Huge brush fires that destroyed hundreds of acres of property have been started because of illegal aliens building fires in the brush, a great deal of money is lost rebuilding fences when smugglers run through them trying to evade the authorities, they leave gates open letting cattle wander out causing accidents on the road and considerable loss in time and money spent rounding them up again. Although thankfully not very common there have also been assaults, rapes and murders, mostly at isolated homes by illegal aliens. Hospitals are in debt along the border for treating aliens who have been snake bit, hit by cars, run over by trains and so on.
Given all of that, and the number of Mexicans who die of the heat, dehydration and starvation trying to cross the border I can certainly understand the frustration of people in Arizona. I do not understand the outrage over increased efforts to enforce laws already on the books nor do I understand the claims of racism. I’m as white as a sheet and every time I come back from the border I have to go through a checkpoint like everyone else and am questioned about my citizenship. I’ve been stopped on the highway numerous times because (I was told) my vehicle matched the description of a vehicle reported to be carrying drugs or illegal aliens or to have been stolen or such thing. If illegal aliens from Mexico are a problem I fail to see anything evil with looking for Mexicans. Any time any crime is committed the first thing the authorities do is put out a description of the suspect; their race, their hair color, what clothes they are wearing and so on.
However, it is also true that nothing short of the most draconian measures possible are going to solve this problem on the part of the United States. The only place this problem can be truly solved is in Mexico and by allowing illegal immigration to continue unchecked the US is only enabling the problem. The primary underlying reason for illegal immigration is that Mexico is a failed state -which is not a racist statement but a simple fact. These border enforcement measures are often called racist because the same measures are not employed along the Canadian border. Well, the important difference is that Canada is not a failed state, Canadians are not flooding across the US border by the millions, drug wars are not being waged in Manitoba or Ontario and whole provinces in Canada are not under the control of criminal cartels.
The monarchy may not play a significant role in Canadian society and government today but the fact that Canada has always been a constitutional monarchy has meant that Canada has had a stable government where law and order and shared loyalty to the Crown allowed a stable and prosperous country to be built up. Mexico, on the other hand, has only ever had two monarchs and they shot both of them. The country throughout most of its history has been ruled by warlords and dictators, most coming to power via a coup rather than the democratic process they claim to champion. The history of Mexico has been one of almost continuous civil wars and revolutions. From 1924 to 2000 Mexico was essentially a one party socialist dictatorship under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) founded by a violently anti-clerical Marxist. Had either of the Mexican empires been maintained things would certainly be very different in Mexico today and given the state of the country as it is that difference would almost have to be for the better.
It could be argued, I suppose, that the United States should be held to blame for the problems of Mexico and somehow obliged to take in all Mexicans who wish to flee their country because of American support for the downfall of the two empires. However, statistics show that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants vote for the most leftist candidates after coming to the US (which is of course why the Democrats are the most opposed to border security) and support essentially the same policies in the US that made the country they left the failure that it is. This has also caused me to scratch my head in wonder at the Catholic leadership in America championing the cause of the illegal immigrants considering that (although nominally predominately Catholic) these people are coming from what was, until very recently, one of the most stridently anti-clerical regimes in the world and once here support overwhelmingly the political party that is most opposed to core Catholic values.
The situation is complicated, it is frustrating on a number of levels and I have nothing but sympathy for the decent Mexican people who are trying to make the best of their situation. I have zero sympathy for those who come to the USA illegally and then demand the same benefits and treatment of those who came the proper and legal way or who criticize and condemn America while enjoying the safety and prosperity that country provides them. I can only shake my head at those who wave Mexican flags in the US and shout about their Mexican “pride”. Real pride and patriotism would be staying in Mexico and working to make it a better country rather than abandoning it en masse. The best thing the US could do is stop illegal immigration as much as possible and let Mexico go its own way until the people finally get the message that the socialist-revolutionary model is a failure and try something different. I would suggest going in the exact opposite direction and looking to the example of their Emperors, possibly the only selfless leaders Mexico has ever had.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Greece: They're Still Available
With the current crisis in Greece, yet another shining example of republican failure, many people, knowing my monarchist sympathies, have asked me how things would be different if the Greek monarchy was still around. This is all speculative of course but that's never stopped me. Of course, I would like to say that everything would be coming up roses if only Constantine II were still head of state but that would be a tad dishonest. Contrary to popular opinion the King of the Hellenes was never the autocratic sort of guy and it is possible, even if he were still on the throne, the democratic process could still have produced a parliament and a succession of PM's who would have put Greece in the same sorry state it is in now. However, the fact remains that Greece is a republic and it has failed miserably and my usual comment on the subject of what would be different with the King on the throne is that the monarchy certainly could not have done any worse.I am no expert on Greek politics nor are economics my strong point. So, keep in mind my views on this subject are not strident. From where I sit it seems to me that the best thing for Greece to do would be to abandon the euro and restore the drachma. A lower value of currency would mean that investors would get more 'bang for their buck' in Greece and attract investment. This would have to go hand-in-hand with some big changes for the Greek economy. Obviously the socialist set-up of high taxes and entitlements would have to be done away with -it plainly does not work. The Greek government needs to stop the rampant spending and attract more businesses -and thus more jobs- to Greece. The King could give some practical help in this area by bringing a sense of security and stability but the country must also crack down on corruption and lower taxes. I know, that's a dirty word in modern Europe, but a simple look at the micro-monarchies of Liechtenstein and Monaco show how much investment and prosperity come to a country with very low taxes.
Now, if the Greek King were to be restored with some real political powers I think he could certainly be a big help in getting these things done -for starters by sacking incompetent and corrupt officials. However, he would certainly become unpopular just as the current government is by cutting entitlements and stopping the government hand-outs. This is what socialism does to a country. Others have pointed out that this has not happened in other socialist European countries but it seems to me that it must eventually. One can only keep up the juggling act for so long and when pay-outs overtake income something will have to give and across Europe those on government welfare have been steadly increasing in number while the overall population is in decline -all recipes for disaster. Whatever happens I hope everything works out for Greece, it is painful to see the "cradle of civilization" in the state it is in. I would just encourage the Greeks to look at what socialist republicanism has brought them and keep in mind that your King and Queen are still available -ready, willing and able to serve.
The Emperor's Library (II): Emperor Augustus
While Julius Caesar had laid the foundation for the eclipse of the Roman Republic by the Roman Empire it was his nephew, adopted son and heir, Augustus Caesar, who oversaw the transition and made it a success. It was Augustus who managed to get the ardent Roman republicans on the side of an imperial monarchy and embrace it whole-heartedly. It was Augustus who, as the saying went, ‘found Rome brick and left it marble’ and it was Augustus Caesar who established the government framework for the Roman Empire that allowed it to continue for centuries, through the reigns of good and bad emperors alike, and rise to dominate the known world. He was, in every way, a colossal figure in European, western and world history.
He was born Gaius Octavius (aka Octavian) in Rome on September 23, 63 BC. His father had been a senator but died when he was only four. It was through his mother that his most prestigious family ties came as she was the daughter of Julius Caesar’s daughter Julia. When Julius Caesar adopted him as his heir on May 8, 44 BC he took the name Gaius Julius Caesar. He fought with his uncle in Spain and was in Albania preparing to lead the campaign against the Parthians when he learned that Caesar had been assassinated. He returned to Rome and began building his political power base, supported by senators who were fearful of Marc Antony in particular. In a political alliance Antony married Octavian’s sister and the prestige of the young man was increased further when the Roman senate declared Caesar a god in 42 BC.
Nonetheless, Octavian (now known officially as Caesar) broke with Antony after his marriage with Queen Cleopatra of Egypt. This made Antony unpopular in Rome and Octavian took advantage of this to gain public support for moving against Antony, a conflict he won at the pivotal battle of Actium in 31 BC. This left Octavian as the most powerful figure in the Roman world but he had to move carefully to establish the imperial system without offending the republican sensibilities of the Romans, especially the Roman elite. He declared that he was restoring the republic and handed power back to the senate which promptly gave most of it back again in act of political theatre. He was elected consul every year and was given the name “Augustus”, meaning “the Exalted”. He did away with nothing of the republican system but consolidated the powers held previously by numerous individuals into his own hands; thus becoming the first Roman Emperor.
Later, a second settlement brought more regularity and permanence to his position, making Augustus effectively a perpetual consul. His preferred title was “Princeps” or ‘First Citizen’ and although he held ultimate power he still treated the senate with respect. He tried to maintain a feeling of things going back to normal while ushering in a new era with extensive building programs including a number of temples as Augustus was very pious and through his own example and legislation he encouraged an emphasis on religion and a return to traditional Roman family values. These changes, along with public games and an attitude of openness and tolerance of criticism made him a very popular monarch. However, in his private life he was not free of all scandal. He liked to gamble and had a number of mistresses but his biggest embarrassment was his daughter who he finally had exiled because of her debauched behavior.
Emperor Augustus was no great scholar but he was a man of common sense and some literary talent. In the same way he was no military genius but presided over some great victories because he recognized this fact and was content to leave military affairs in the hands of the professionals. He led one campaign in Egypt but generally left the strategy and tactics to others. Still, his reign was an era of great successes for the Roman Empire including the conquest of Egypt, the Alpine frontier and the northern Balkans. His most ambitious military effort was a plan to conquer Germany. His stepson Drusus was put in command but upon his death the burden fell on another stepson (and future successor) Tiberius. The effort to conquer Germany ended in epic disaster however when 3 legions under Quintilius Varus were wiped out at the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Emperor Augustus mourned long and hard over this disaster and further plans for expansion were shelved and he even left instructions to his heir Tiberius to do the same and be content with the size of the Roman Empire as it was.
So, all in all, Emperor Augustus had been extremely successful. He had ended the civil wars and fierce partisanship of the late republic, accomplished the peaceful transition from republic to empire, restored and beautified Rome itself, set a new public tone, expanded and defended the empire and kept everyone on side by allowing the retention and maintaining at least outward respect for the republican traditions of Rome. Now, because of this last fact, and because Rome remained, at least on paper, a “republic” throughout the imperial period some have asked if not all the past centuries of the reading of history have been wrong and might Rome not have ever been a monarchy at all? I would find such an argument absurd, both based on the facts and because of my own attachment to the Roman Empire. It is not something I wish to surrender to republicans nor would any republicans I have ever met wish to accept it either. Perhaps the key element though that proves Rome did become a monarchy, and a monarchy of the sort most of us today would be familiar with, is the fact that a hereditary succession was established.
Part of what made Augustus so accepted as the natural leader of Rome was his status as the great-nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar. In the same way his family was viewed very much at the time as the ‘Imperial Family’. It was important to Augustus that the succession continue in his family; the Julian dynasty. However, he ran into problems in this area because he never had a male heir of his own. Therefore he was forced to turn to the husbands and children of his controversial daughter Julia. Her husband Marcellus was considered but such talk ended with his death. Therefore Augustus arranged a marriage between Julia and his most trusted lieutenant Agrippa. Their union produced two sons; Gaius and Lucius, whom Augustus adopted as his own but with Agrippa to be his heir in their minority. Yet, Agrippa died in 12 BC, leaving no one to look after the tots that Augustus trusted so he was forced to turn to the sons of his wife Livia by a previous marriage; the aforementioned Drusus and Tiberius. He had Tiberius marry Julia but he was still reluctant to embrace the future going to the Claudian dynasty and continued to indulge his grandsons Gaius and Lucius. However, when they both predeceased him Tiberius was left as the only viable choice.
Augustus began to slow down as his years caught up with him and his health began to decline. He died at Nola on August 19, 14 AD just a month before his 76th birthday. His body was taken back to Rome and his ashes placed in his magnificent imperial Mausoleum. As the first Roman Emperor he set the standard by which subsequent monarchs would be judged and it was a high standard. He was an astute statesman, moderate, tolerant, careful and yet adept at acting at crucial times to turn situations to his advantage. He successfully made the Roman Republic the Roman Empire peacefully and successfully by establishing the monarchy slowly, step by step over a period of time. At the time of his death his full name and titles were, “Imperator (Emperor) Caesar Divi Filius (son of a god) Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Consul XIII, Imperator XXI, Potestatis XXXVII, Pater Patriae (Father of the Country). He had known victory and some defeats but by any standard he left Rome stronger, more beautiful, more secure, more prosperous and with a more stable foundation for the future than he found it. The month of August was named in his honor and he was deified by the senate upon his death.
He was born Gaius Octavius (aka Octavian) in Rome on September 23, 63 BC. His father had been a senator but died when he was only four. It was through his mother that his most prestigious family ties came as she was the daughter of Julius Caesar’s daughter Julia. When Julius Caesar adopted him as his heir on May 8, 44 BC he took the name Gaius Julius Caesar. He fought with his uncle in Spain and was in Albania preparing to lead the campaign against the Parthians when he learned that Caesar had been assassinated. He returned to Rome and began building his political power base, supported by senators who were fearful of Marc Antony in particular. In a political alliance Antony married Octavian’s sister and the prestige of the young man was increased further when the Roman senate declared Caesar a god in 42 BC.
Nonetheless, Octavian (now known officially as Caesar) broke with Antony after his marriage with Queen Cleopatra of Egypt. This made Antony unpopular in Rome and Octavian took advantage of this to gain public support for moving against Antony, a conflict he won at the pivotal battle of Actium in 31 BC. This left Octavian as the most powerful figure in the Roman world but he had to move carefully to establish the imperial system without offending the republican sensibilities of the Romans, especially the Roman elite. He declared that he was restoring the republic and handed power back to the senate which promptly gave most of it back again in act of political theatre. He was elected consul every year and was given the name “Augustus”, meaning “the Exalted”. He did away with nothing of the republican system but consolidated the powers held previously by numerous individuals into his own hands; thus becoming the first Roman Emperor.
Later, a second settlement brought more regularity and permanence to his position, making Augustus effectively a perpetual consul. His preferred title was “Princeps” or ‘First Citizen’ and although he held ultimate power he still treated the senate with respect. He tried to maintain a feeling of things going back to normal while ushering in a new era with extensive building programs including a number of temples as Augustus was very pious and through his own example and legislation he encouraged an emphasis on religion and a return to traditional Roman family values. These changes, along with public games and an attitude of openness and tolerance of criticism made him a very popular monarch. However, in his private life he was not free of all scandal. He liked to gamble and had a number of mistresses but his biggest embarrassment was his daughter who he finally had exiled because of her debauched behavior.
Emperor Augustus was no great scholar but he was a man of common sense and some literary talent. In the same way he was no military genius but presided over some great victories because he recognized this fact and was content to leave military affairs in the hands of the professionals. He led one campaign in Egypt but generally left the strategy and tactics to others. Still, his reign was an era of great successes for the Roman Empire including the conquest of Egypt, the Alpine frontier and the northern Balkans. His most ambitious military effort was a plan to conquer Germany. His stepson Drusus was put in command but upon his death the burden fell on another stepson (and future successor) Tiberius. The effort to conquer Germany ended in epic disaster however when 3 legions under Quintilius Varus were wiped out at the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Emperor Augustus mourned long and hard over this disaster and further plans for expansion were shelved and he even left instructions to his heir Tiberius to do the same and be content with the size of the Roman Empire as it was.
So, all in all, Emperor Augustus had been extremely successful. He had ended the civil wars and fierce partisanship of the late republic, accomplished the peaceful transition from republic to empire, restored and beautified Rome itself, set a new public tone, expanded and defended the empire and kept everyone on side by allowing the retention and maintaining at least outward respect for the republican traditions of Rome. Now, because of this last fact, and because Rome remained, at least on paper, a “republic” throughout the imperial period some have asked if not all the past centuries of the reading of history have been wrong and might Rome not have ever been a monarchy at all? I would find such an argument absurd, both based on the facts and because of my own attachment to the Roman Empire. It is not something I wish to surrender to republicans nor would any republicans I have ever met wish to accept it either. Perhaps the key element though that proves Rome did become a monarchy, and a monarchy of the sort most of us today would be familiar with, is the fact that a hereditary succession was established.
Part of what made Augustus so accepted as the natural leader of Rome was his status as the great-nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar. In the same way his family was viewed very much at the time as the ‘Imperial Family’. It was important to Augustus that the succession continue in his family; the Julian dynasty. However, he ran into problems in this area because he never had a male heir of his own. Therefore he was forced to turn to the husbands and children of his controversial daughter Julia. Her husband Marcellus was considered but such talk ended with his death. Therefore Augustus arranged a marriage between Julia and his most trusted lieutenant Agrippa. Their union produced two sons; Gaius and Lucius, whom Augustus adopted as his own but with Agrippa to be his heir in their minority. Yet, Agrippa died in 12 BC, leaving no one to look after the tots that Augustus trusted so he was forced to turn to the sons of his wife Livia by a previous marriage; the aforementioned Drusus and Tiberius. He had Tiberius marry Julia but he was still reluctant to embrace the future going to the Claudian dynasty and continued to indulge his grandsons Gaius and Lucius. However, when they both predeceased him Tiberius was left as the only viable choice.
Augustus began to slow down as his years caught up with him and his health began to decline. He died at Nola on August 19, 14 AD just a month before his 76th birthday. His body was taken back to Rome and his ashes placed in his magnificent imperial Mausoleum. As the first Roman Emperor he set the standard by which subsequent monarchs would be judged and it was a high standard. He was an astute statesman, moderate, tolerant, careful and yet adept at acting at crucial times to turn situations to his advantage. He successfully made the Roman Republic the Roman Empire peacefully and successfully by establishing the monarchy slowly, step by step over a period of time. At the time of his death his full name and titles were, “Imperator (Emperor) Caesar Divi Filius (son of a god) Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Consul XIII, Imperator XXI, Potestatis XXXVII, Pater Patriae (Father of the Country). He had known victory and some defeats but by any standard he left Rome stronger, more beautiful, more secure, more prosperous and with a more stable foundation for the future than he found it. The month of August was named in his honor and he was deified by the senate upon his death.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Favorite Royal Images: Royal Allies
The first "Big Three": Czar Nicholas II of Russia, King George V of Great Britain and King Albert I of the Belgians.
Monarch Profile: King Leopold II of the Belgians
It is safe to say that no other Belgian monarch is as controversial as King Leopold II. He was born in Brussels on April 9, 1835 to King Leopold I and Queen Louise-Marie and named Louis Philippe Marie Victor. His childhood was not a very happy one. His mother thought his prominent nose made him look deformed and his father referred to him as “the little tyrant”. Whereas his brother Philippe was jovial and popular and his sister was the charming and studious favorite of their father, Leopold was shy, awkward and walked with a limp. He seemed to be always compared to his siblings and his widely respected father and never favorably. It is not surprising that much of his future reign would be devoted to succeeding in the task his father was never able to, namely making Belgium an imperial power.
Leopold II was obsessed with achieving international greatness for Belgium and in 1876 he convened an international conference on the exploration of central Africa. This led, the following year, to his sending out the intrepid Henry Morton Stanley to sign treaties with local chieftains and lay the foundations for colonial expansion. Stanley did his work well and in 1885 the Berlin Conference recognized Leopold II as King-Sovereign of the Congo Free State which was to be in personal union with the Crown of Belgium. This effectively made Leopold II private owner of a vast central African empire some 80x larger than his entire country. In 1890 King Leopold II organized a military campaign from the Congo Free State to eradicate the Arab slave trade in central Africa which was still booming at the time.
Eventually, however, the reports and international criticism became too great to ignore and in 1904 (though he is seldom given credit for this) it was King Leopold who sent a commission to the Congo to investigate these reports. Many have dismissed these inquisitors as hand-picked “yes men” Leopold knew would never report anything negative. Again, this is untrue as the commission met with native people and leaders as well as colonial officials and returned with a very balanced report. They cited the advances made by the King’s investments; the roads, schools, hospitals and local infrastructure that had been created, the humanitarian work done by the often heroic missionaries but it also reported that a great many abuses were going on as well, many people had died, many mutilated and many more exploited. Once this was done King Leopold issued new regulations to correct this situation and in 1908 the Congo Free State became a colony, the Belgian Congo, under the control of the government rather than being the personal property of the King.
All of this is said in an effort to be fair -not to sugar coat the facts. One does not have to intentionally wipe out an entire population to be a ‘bad guy’. Whether it was his cold, autocratic nature toward his family or his scandalous private life there is no doubt King Leopold II would have been seen as an unsavory character regardless of what happened in Africa. The suffering was immense but the fact remains that his guilt lies in setting up a system which inadvertently encouraged exploitation rather than a deliberate campaign of genocide. Such accusations in that direction are certainly untrue. He was not a completely heartless man and was reluctant to have even criminals whose guilt had been proven put to death. He wanted Belgium to become an imperial power and to embellish his country and this he certainly did. Long known as the “Builder King” many of the most magnificent buildings and national monuments in Belgium, such as the Cinquantenaire were built by Leopold at his own expense.
However, on the international stage Leopold II was mostly unpopular among his peers. Part of this, it must be said, was due to jealousy over his success and the fact that many larger countries felt little Belgium had achieved a status out of proportion to her size. Much of it though was due to the King himself, because of the private scandals and the suffering in the Congo associated with him. In personal dealings the King put people off and made them uncomfortable, partly because of his own character and partly, no doubt, because of the image portrayed of him in the anti-monarchy and anti-colonial press. Nonetheless, he insisted that he cared nothing for popularity, though this may have been a defense mechanism rather than a genuine sentiment. One other thing Leopold II always stressed was his belief in a military policy of armed neutrality with defense based on military preparedness rather than simply trusting international agreements. As he was on his deathbed the conscription act he had long sought was finally passed. In this area too the coming Great War would prove the unpopular monarch to have been correct.
Also, five days before his death, Leopold II married his long-time paramour, a woman of ill-repute by whom he had two illegitimate children, in a religious ceremony (there was no civil marriage). He died on December 17, 1909. He said he wanted only a small, private funeral but he was given the full royal treatment though there was not exactly widespread grief at the passing of this man who seemed to have been unpopular since the day he was born. His own family was aware of how the reputation of the Belgian monarchy had suffered during his reign. When he came to the Belgian throne in 1865 King Leopold II declared that, “all that I desire is to leave Belgium larger, stronger and more beautiful”. If that was his only standard of success Leopold II was a successful monarch as he did do all of those things. However, his name will forever be tainted by the many scandals of his reign, paramount amongst them being the horror that existed in the Congo Free State. Thankfully, his successor would be a man of impeccable character, embodying everything that a good King should be.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
MM Video: The May Queen
It was on this day in 1946 that Prince Umberto II and Princess Marie Jose of Belgium became the last King and Queen of Italy. Because of the short time of their reign Maria Jose has been known as "the May Queen".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
